The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Queensland journalists need protection for confidential sources > Comments

Queensland journalists need protection for confidential sources : Comments

By Bill Potts, published 14/11/2011

Court decision shows confessions are not protected by shield laws.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
I have to be very honest here.

There is no evidence, if we are considering print journalism, that there are any journalists here in Queensland.

It's been a long time since Phil Dickey 'exposed' what everyone in Qld knew was going on, and there has been nothing since then to warrant the title of 'journalism'.

The Courier Mail is a parish-pump primped up opinion sheet with no redeeming features whatsoever.

Regional newspapers are blighted with APN conservatism and unwavering support for the status quo.

The Sunday Mail, well, what utter garbage!

Oh yes, nearly forgot, we do have 'journos' who 'work' for the Oz here too. Well, the Oz is not known for any journalism worthy of a mention is it? A total Murdoch controlled mouthpiece for narowminded bigotry and hard right Roman Catholic and neoliberal opinion.

Marginally more interesting than the Sunday Mail, sometimes.

Wheelie-bin papers, whoever owns them, are good for the wheeliebib- those free rags that infest letterboxes.

The commercial radio and TV stations here, well, really! These have no 'journalists' working for them, only a vast array of 'weather girls' all trying to look stunning and with nothing much worth saying.

In short, there are no 'sources' to be protected in Queensland, because there is no 'news' reported.

I have not laughed so much for ages.

Thanks for the thread.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 14 November 2011 9:44:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm confused. Are we actually arguing here that people who know something that could ensure the carriage of justice should be allowed to withhold that information?

If Person A tells a journo that he knows for certain his boss is skimming thousands out of the charity box, then the journo should be able to hide that fact? Or declare that fact as hearsay, but withhold details of the person who can actually provide the full story?

I'm with The Blue Cross. Perhaps, if we had a greater level of integrity in our media, I'd be happy for journalists to make these decisions. Or perhaps not. Journalists are responsible for telling stories; our courts are responsible for making decisions about justice.
Posted by Otokonoko, Monday, 14 November 2011 7:09:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don't need protection for toeing the line ? You'd need it but don't get it if you tell facts.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 15 November 2011 6:57:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Journalists are responsible for telling stories; our courts are responsible for making decisions about justice.
Otokonoko,
Wouldn't it be nice if it were like that ?
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 6:54:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy